IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Stream State and PRIORITY Frames

Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> Tue, 17 January 2017 22:31 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request+bounce-httpbisa-archive-bis2juki=lists.ie@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EB751294D3 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Jan 2017 14:31:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.72
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.72 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6rtKoz4VsYcw for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Jan 2017 14:31:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DCADE1294A1 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Jan 2017 14:31:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1cTcES-0000JW-Sz for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 17 Jan 2017 22:28:00 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2017 22:28:00 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1cTcES-0000JW-Sz@frink.w3.org>
Received: from titan.w3.org ([128.30.52.76]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <martin.thomson@gmail.com>) id 1cTcEP-0000IY-9A for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 17 Jan 2017 22:27:57 +0000
Received: from mail-qk0-f169.google.com ([209.85.220.169]) by titan.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <martin.thomson@gmail.com>) id 1cTcEJ-0008A6-Ej for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 17 Jan 2017 22:27:52 +0000
Received: by mail-qk0-f169.google.com with SMTP id 11so123339482qkl.3 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Tue, 17 Jan 2017 14:27:30 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=LZoR+z2Gtb0tnZfYvGqy3S8iwjEAwgdGE4w8yqUD41s=; b=lD5hjxcaxPZoVCvznP9LMwnULoX0yi7WK3N/gHG8iZisJAhq6QElrb3aD7y+SFSI87 LZ56duI8aQ+6cjk+gmUPDsNvlmjdv5AWzRRCmUhtq8tz2JfOjtV9U9785fOONK0xjr2k gp0gip+lTr2aVa8SwGoXCm5yZhoHf+DzNCcwE0rdINHyVFUnIQacC3L7TJQ7nKG/8Ksa Fkf5fw3X3yznFXh/6wp8FjW9Xj7VBCG5btFIzhfXg2CfPaTOJRIcDcb61h58AGF/m68y bmc1AcYRI3B8N8MxLTALujsN4kW56GrU6qUPWfrCkA27JPvh7Wt5v07/n7pEGxqTP0lN OSuQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=LZoR+z2Gtb0tnZfYvGqy3S8iwjEAwgdGE4w8yqUD41s=; b=nXroHg2AOe9g0kQ6TrVEEnbe7wmzKk9c0OJrzx0ehpWQnN0QAKED3LzZwmhP77BL8S oNtu39gubgjmOyLIY3PBXeaaYBAvLr9ebEeKqSWQoDaFAKtr2AfO+8kfGNXqpiU7CGAj bTI2w3uJkxgDw+2+K4ymgPsLK5LuOyvm7M3GPa5mvmVJDiYtws5yFtoHOm9ztQalpD/f KYDcnTcq1z1Dzxbd3Xk6YZZNweQhthbXJA8GXsVgOg40G/qaaqg22wV7aPyKyJBaC5qB 6A/FyuCjr3nbodNE1tn1bzZsIY350CG8F7YhAV939Mr9+Se9l8wC8oejq0Nmjqef4Gze ecJg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXJw/K/0PpCuElMShgFkIyWhXrHtMXghRn6/OS8cphN6hdEeorzblWkHoifMq08Q44P98WQoDhuNTRRh6A==
X-Received: by 10.55.164.85 with SMTP id n82mr36773738qke.316.1484692045333; Tue, 17 Jan 2017 14:27:25 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.140.19.112 with HTTP; Tue, 17 Jan 2017 14:27:24 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAPyZ6=Kh3n+RJi=RqgFBojgRDpfJ=nbr0i4kvO20ET0Kt7UA8Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAFn2buAYWHQSWhhoKZ2GKbqXR1A+tScjkAwZmOuQ9gV9jMp2bA@mail.gmail.com> <CAPyZ6=Kh3n+RJi=RqgFBojgRDpfJ=nbr0i4kvO20ET0Kt7UA8Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2017 11:27:24 +1300
Message-ID: <CABkgnnWmPdDXVS+CvmChRjyqkJooSKgy6KdUdN+9nGzOyJazhg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tatsuhiro Tsujikawa <tatsuhiro.t@gmail.com>
Cc: Scott Mitchell <scott.k.mitch1@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.220.169; envelope-from=martin.thomson@gmail.com; helo=mail-qk0-f169.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.8
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-0.230, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_DB=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: titan.w3.org 1cTcEJ-0008A6-Ej 33ee9772a35f93d1f508d61e77163258
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Stream State and PRIORITY Frames
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CABkgnnWmPdDXVS+CvmChRjyqkJooSKgy6KdUdN+9nGzOyJazhg@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/33311
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

On 18 January 2017 at 01:37, Tatsuhiro Tsujikawa <tatsuhiro.t@gmail.com> wrote:
> If my understanding is correct, this only refers to the new stream ID used
> by HEADERS, and PUSH_PROMISE frames which open or reserve streams.  The
> example text following that statement uses HEADERS which opens new stream.
> PRIORITY frame does not change stream state, and there is no reason to close
> all unused streams lower than bearing stream ID.  That said, I agree that
> this is not crystal clear in the document.  In practice, this is probably
> rather rare case.

This is, I think, the expectation.

I think that we probably want to clarify the point by explicitly
saying that PRIORITY doesn't affect stream states.  We say that it can
be sent in any state, but we don't also mention that important point.
Do people here agree that an erratum on this point is appropriate
here?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email